Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – First proviso to s.223(1) – Proviso is substantive in nature: Held: Though Chapter XVI of the BNSS lays down the procedural law dealing with complaints made to a Magistrate, the aforesaid proviso is substantive in nature, as it does not merely regulate the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted, rather it confers a right upon the accused to be heard before taking cognizance which forms a part of the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined u/Art.21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 – Further, the word “shall” occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature, which enures to the benefit of an accused – Resultantly, cognizance of an offence taken by a Court without due compliance of the aforestated proviso would be void ab initio. [Para 27] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.531(2)(a) – Objective of: Held: s.531(2)(a) of the BNSS has a laudable objective behind it which saves the proceedings initiated under the CrPC, prior to the commencement of the BNSS – It is meant to give a prospective application to the provisions of the BNSS – In other words, once a proceeding such as an appeal, application, investigation, inquiry or trial is initiated under the CrPC, then the same must meet its logical conclusion under the CrPC itself – Thus, the object of the said provision is to avoid piecemeal application of the CrPC vis-à-vis the BNSS. [Para 28] Case Law Cited